>There are no fields of wild wheat or corn.

I don't think you meant to say it that way. Yes, there is such a thing as
"wild wheat" and "wild corn (maize)". Else, early grain gathering would
have never led to agriculture. The point should be that most of these
plants have very little resemblance to "modern" grains.

>Even dogs of the same breed ( poodles, German
>shepherds,salukis) chosen at random have far less in common genetically
>than even the most distantly related humans.

It doesn't hurt that a human "generation" is - what, 10 times maybe? - the
length of a dog "generation". Of course they are going to have considerably
more genetic diversity. Especially when "someone else" is controlling their
genetic potential :)

> would seem to me
> that these particular racial characteristics evolved for very specific
> reasons, not least of which
> would be the diet that was available in the part of the world that a
> particular branch of
> humanity lives/lived.

In order for really noticable differences to occur, a human population
would have to be completely cut-off from their bretheren for an extended
period of time. This would actually result in speciation, or a "new"
species. There are, without a doubt, cases of increased/decreased
adaptation and sensitivity to certain foods (lactose tolerance being an
example), but for the most part we are all adapted to the basic paleo food
groups.

>He may have been just as
>rapacious as modern man, only his lower population preventing him from
having
>such a global impact.

One example would be all of the extinctions - throughout history - that
have taken place when man appears on the scene.

>Trying to avoid a breakdown of any functioning system could be the
smartest
>key to survival.

True - but - I am 46 years of age. I can recall *dire* predictions during
my teens that should have resulted in my early demise because of
over-pollution, overpopulation, food shortages, - a whole passel of "end of
the world" scenarios. Those things (apparently :) did not happen - or at
least did not happen when they were expected to happen. So, I have to
assume we did a few things correctly since that time that improved
circumstances. Apparently, a simple awareness of our foibles *does* have an
impact on future events.

>Nature gave us one means of slowing down the
>birth cycle which is prolonged nursing.

From my reading it seems that h-g societies have fewer births compared to
ag societies. Is there a relationship here? Could it be that h-g mothers
perhaps carry their babies more, which - simply because of convenience -
might promote prolonged nursing (and a lower birth rate)?

(Ooops, strayed into the overpopulation area there - bad, bad, bad fingers
- stop it :)